• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Part of IPCC Report based on HEARSAY!

cpwill

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
82,589
Reaction score
45,422
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
:rofl Oh this is just too great:

A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.

Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped: "If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments."




hey man, don't be a skeptical flat earth denier, this stuff is settled science!!! :lol::doh
 
cpwill said:
:rofl Oh this is just too great:
Click to expand...
Great find! We really need to scrap the "settled science" BS and start over again using real science (== publish the data, the source of the data, and the algorithms used to massage it).

But then, when the research grants and the panic dry up, what will Mike Mann and AlGore do for a living?
 
live off of the interest of their millions (billions) gained from conning gullible people.
 
MrVicchio said:
Your house is fine, will be fine long after your gone.
Click to expand...

thanks again for reminding me that the earth is actually flat, despite what the science tells us [/s]
 
Last edited:
justabubba said:
thanks again for reminding me that the earth is actually flat, despite what the science tells us [/s]
Click to expand...

It doesn't help when some scientists tell us lies, then recant and admit it was never studied in the first place. Oops. Drank a little too much of the useful idiot kool-aid didn't he? In the quest for overwhelming scientific evidence, science was thrown out the window.

Which calls into question the "overwhelming science" and how much more of it is bunk.

Given this, I'm not surprised people thought the earth was flat as long as they did... perhaps the sea monster at the edge of the ocean that eats all the ships is behind it all! :cool:
 
Not to go off on a tangent, but anyone who ever sailed away from the coastline understood that the earth was round and Eratosthenes even calculated the circumference ca. 240 BC. By the time Columbus sailed, the only folks preaching a flat earth were a group called the Schoolmen who lived in ivory towers at the universities of the time; they could philosophize, manufacture the necessary "first principles" (data substitute) to support their agenda, cite each others publications, and provide the necessary peer review of each others work.

That makes the flat earth reference relevant to the global warming debate, but it is an error to apply the "flat earther" label to those who question whether humans are responsible for climatic changes.
 
cpwill said:
live off of the interest of their millions (billions) gained from conning gullible people.
Click to expand...

Conning gullible people? You know, the anti global warming agenda reminds me of another agenda, quite a few years ago, that was pushed by the cigarette industry:

Here is a doctor, who is really an actor (as if David Rose was really a scientist, and not a writer), showing how cigarettes are actually good for you.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwVxuu6Ugmg"]YouTube- Another CRAZY Cigarette Commercial[/ame]

And, of course, here is the testimony of **cough** expert witnesses **cough**, who testified under oath (perjury) that nicotine was not addictive.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYKB4AH_Er8"]YouTube- Tobacco Executives Lie and Say Nicotine isn't Addictive[/ame]

Today? Different times, different issue, but the same type of dishonest shills. You gotta hand it to the anti scientists. They DO bring their own experts, such as David Rose.... Oops, he isn't a scientist at all, but a journalist who was exposed as a fraud by The Economist Magazine.
 
danarhea said:
Today? Different times, different issue, but the same type of dishonest shills. You gotta hand it to the anti scientists. They DO bring their own experts, such as David Rose.... Oops, he isn't a scientist at all, but a journalist who was exposed as a fraud by The Economist Magazine.
Click to expand...

Who's the dishonest shill?? In my opinion, it is the IPCC for taking a news story based on flimsy evidence and printing in their vaunted climate report, passing the false story as peer reviewed scientific evidence.

More and more, we are seeing that the AGW emperor has no clothes.
 
I heard the error was in the number; the 2035 was suppose to be 2350.
 
That was the spin on one of the errors.
 
danarhea said:
Today? Different times, different issue, but the same type of dishonest shills. You gotta hand it to the anti scientists. They DO bring their own experts, such as David Rose.... Oops, he isn't a scientist at all, but a journalist who was exposed as a fraud by The Economist Magazine.
Click to expand...


I agree. The global-warming fraud is akin to the smoking-is-good-for-you fraud.
 
danarhea said:
Conning gullible people? You know, the anti global warming agenda reminds me of another agenda, quite a few years ago, that was pushed by the cigarette industry:

Here is a doctor, who is really an actor (as if David Rose was really a scientist, and not a writer), showing how cigarettes are actually good for you.


And, of course, here is the testimony of **cough** expert witnesses **cough**, who testified under oath (perjury) that nicotine was not addictive.


Today? Different times, different issue, but the same type of dishonest shills. You gotta hand it to the anti scientists. They DO bring their own experts, such as David Rose.... Oops, he isn't a scientist at all, but a journalist who was exposed as a fraud by The Economist Magazine.
Click to expand...

So this comes out that the IPCC used an article from a periodical, gained from a phone interview with a single Indian scientist that simply speculated that glaciers might melt by 2035 and passed it off as peer reviewed science and you somehow spin it around and say its the global warming skeptics that are behaving like the cigarette companies you cited? Is it not the IPCC that used an article from a journalist as part of their "science"?

They are actually recanting their statement dana. Which means they are admitting a lie. And this isn't a "oops, the scientific procedures we used weren't accurate enough back then" kind of mistake. They simply believed an article, because they wanted it to be true.
 
WI Crippler said:
So this comes out that the IPCC used an article from a periodical, gained from a phone interview with a single Indian scientist that simply speculated that glaciers might melt by 2035 and passed it off as peer reviewed science and you somehow spin it around and say its the global warming skeptics that are behaving like the cigarette companies you cited? Is it not the IPCC that used an article from a journalist as part of their "science"?

They are actually recanting their statement dana. Which means they are admitting a lie. And this isn't a "oops, the scientific procedures we used weren't accurate enough back then" kind of mistake. They simply believed an article, because they wanted it to be true.
Click to expand...

Meaning it "fit" a particular political paradigm.
 
b350832fcdf53a0209f171c70978d742.jpg]


UN climate change expert: there could be more errors in report


The Indian head of the UN climate change panel defended his position today even as further errors were identified in the panel's assessment of Himalayan glaciers.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri dismissed calls for him to resign over the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change’s retraction of a prediction that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.

...The IPCC admitted on Thursday that the prediction was “poorly substantiated” in the latest of a series of blows to the panel’s credibility.

Dr Pachauri said that the IPCC’s report was the responsibility of the panel’s Co-Chairs at the time, both of whom have since moved on.

They were Dr Martin Parry, a British scientist now at Imperial College London, and Dr Osvaldo Canziani , an Argentine meteorologist. Neither was immediately available for comment.

“I don’t want to blame them, but typically the working group reports are managed by the Co-Chairs,” Dr Pachauri said. “Of course the Chair is there to facilitate things, but we have substantial amounts of delegation.”....
 
Last edited:
It doesn't surprise me that the IPCC uses false data and publishes errors. It's all about ideology and how science can be manipulated to fit the ideology. I have a question, does anyone know if any skeptics or global warming deniers are on the IPPC? Or is it completely made up of bias individuals that spew lies to fuel an agenda so desperately wanted by the UN and others?
 
danarhea said:
Conning gullible people? You know, the anti global warming agenda reminds me of another agenda, quite a few years ago, that was pushed by the cigarette industry:

Here is a doctor, who is really an actor (as if David Rose was really a scientist, and not a writer), showing how cigarettes are actually good for you.

YouTube- Another CRAZY Cigarette Commercial

And, of course, here is the testimony of **cough** expert witnesses **cough**, who testified under oath (perjury) that nicotine was not addictive.

YouTube- Tobacco Executives Lie and Say Nicotine isn't Addictive

Today? Different times, different issue, but the same type of dishonest shills. You gotta hand it to the anti scientists. They DO bring their own experts, such as David Rose.... Oops, he isn't a scientist at all, but a journalist who was exposed as a fraud by The Economist Magazine.
Click to expand...
Did you vote for Obama or not? If not, why not he's trying to save the planet?
 
:confused: i thought the mere act of him being coronated saved the planet?
 
That's what he and his followers thought... :roll:
 
As the guy who pointed out the error in the first place says; "I would stress that, we're talking here about 300 words out of about 2,500 pages and it's a mistake which is the only one of its kind to have been detected in the two or three years since the IPCC's fourth assessment was published."

The report has been examined for over two years now by people with agendas, business interests and scientists/people who genuinely want to find 'the truth'. I would say that only a single error has been found that has been deemed worthy of publishing, after all that scrutiny, is something of a testament to the rest of the report.
 
iangb said:
As the guy who pointed out the error in the first place says; "I would stress that, we're talking here about 300 words out of about 2,500 pages and it's a mistake which is the only one of its kind to have been detected in the two or three years since the IPCC's fourth assessment was published."

The report has been examined for over two years now by people with agendas, business interests and scientists/people who genuinely want to find 'the truth'. I would say that only a single error has been found that has been deemed worthy of publishing, after all that scrutiny, is something of a testament to the rest of the report.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? Errors are being reported on almost a daily basis now.
 
a telling admonition was contained in that cited article:
... SIMON LAUDER: Do you think this will damage the efforts to tackle climate change?

GRAHAM COGLEY: I think it would be a costly mistake if it served to increase perceptions among in the public mind that climatic change is something we don't need to do anything about. That would be a very serious outcome.
...
Click to expand...
 
Are you kidding? Errors are being reported on almost a daily basis now.
Click to expand...
With the IPCC? Link 'em.

EDIT: Considering the media fuss that has blown up over this error and conspicuous absence of other errors in mainstream media, I would be surprised it this was true.
 
Last edited:
iangb said:
With the IPCC? Link 'em.

EDIT: Considering the media fuss that has blown up over this error and conspicuous absence of other errors in mainstream media, I would be surprised it this was true.
Click to expand...

I'll be glad to when I get a chance. It might be awhile since I will be out of town til the middle of next week.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom